to download - Research Institute for Fragrance Materials

EES_4C_EES 10/6/11 12:59 PM Page 1 

Reprinted from 

Volume 74 , Issue 6 , September 2011 

E 

E 

S 

Ecotoxicology 

and 

Environmental 

Safety 

Macrocyclic Fragrance Materials—A 

Screening-Level Environmental 

Assessment Using Chemical Categorization 

Daniel Salvito, Aurelia Lapczynski, Christen Sachse-Vasquez, 

Colin McIntosh, Peter Calow, Helmut Greim, and Beate Escher 

Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. 

www.rifm.org 

rifm@rifm.org 

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoenv

No responsibility is assumed by Elsevier, its licensors or associates for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products 

liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein. 

Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, in particular, independent verification of diagnoses and drug dosages should be made. 

Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 74 (2011) 1619–1629 

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect 

Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoenv 

Macrocyclic fragrance materials—A screening-level environmental 

assessment using chemical categorization 

Daniel Salvito a,n , Aurelia Lapczynski a , Christen Sachse-Vasquez b , Colin McIntosh c , Peter Calow d , 

Helmut Greim e , Beate Escher f 

a Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, 50 Tice Boulevard, Woodcliff Lake, NJ 07677, USA 

b Takasago International Corporation, Rockleigh, NJ, USA 

c Firmenich, Inc. Princeton, NJ, USA 

d Roskilde University, Department of Environmental, Social & Spatial Change, Roskilde, Denmark 

e Technical University of Munich, Institute for Toxicology & Environmental Hygiene, Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany 

f University of Queensland, National Research Centre for Environment Toxicology (EnTox), Coopers Plains, Australia 

article info 

Article history: 

Received 15 December 2010 

Received in revised form 

4 May 2011 

Accepted 5 May 2011 

Available online 12 June 2011 

Keywords: 

Risk assessment 

Chemical categorization 

Fragrance ingredients 

abstract 

A screening-level aquatic environmental risk assessment for macrocyclic fragrance materials using a 

‘‘group approach’’ is presented using data for 30 macrocyclic fragrance ingredients. In this group 

approach, conservative estimates of environmental exposure and ecotoxicological effects thresholds for 

compounds within two subgroups (15 macrocyclic ketones and 15 macrocyclic lactones/lactides) were 

used to estimate the aquatic ecological risk potential for these subgroups. It is reasonable to separate 

these fragrance materials into the two subgroups based on the likely metabolic pathway required for 

biodegradation and on expected different ecotoxicological modes of action. The current volumes of use 

for the macrocyclic ketones in both Europe and North America ranges from o1 (low kg quantities) to no 

greater than 50 metric tonnes in either region and for macrocyclic lactones/lactides the volume of use 

range for both regions is o1 to no greater than 1000 metric tonnes in any one region. Based on these 

regional tonnages, biodegradability of these two subgroups of materials, and minimal in stream dilution 

(3:1), the conservatively predicted exposure concentrations for macrocyclic ketones would range from 

o0.01 to 0.05 mg/L in Europe and from o0.01 to 0.03 mg/L in North America. For macrocyclic lactones/ 

lactides, the concentration within the mixing zone would range from o0.01 to 0.7 mg/L in Europe and 

from o0.01 to 1.0 mg/L in North America. The PNECs derived for the macrocyclic ketones is 0.22 mg/L 

and for macrocyclic lactones/lactides is 2.7 mg/L. The results of this screening-level aquatic ecological 

risk assessment indicate that at their current tonnage, often referred to as volumes of use, macrocyclic 

fragrance materials in Europe and North America, pose a negligible risk to aquatic biota; with no PEC/ 

PNEC ratio exceeding 1 for any material in any subgroup. 

& 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 

1. Introduction 

The Research Institute for Fragrance Materials (RIFM) ‘‘Framework 

for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquatic risk assessment’’ 

(termed ‘‘Environmental Framework’’ hereafter) was developed to 

screen a large database of organic compounds used as fragrance 

ingredients to assess their potential environmental risk and set 

priorities for further risk assessment, as necessary (Salvito et al., 

2002). RIFM has been using a group or chemical categories approach 

based on structure–activity relationships for the assessment of 

human health safety (Bickers et al., 2003). Presented here is the first 

n Corresponding author. 

E-mail address: dsalvito@rifm.org (D. Salvito). 

0147-6513/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 

doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2011.05.002 

application of this group approach for the aquatic risk assessment of 

structurally related groups of fragrance ingredients using the example 

of macrocyclic fragrance ingredients. Macrocyclic fragrance materials 

are important fragrance ingredients and are widely used in cosmetics, 

detergents, fabric softeners, cleaning products and other household 

products.Thisapproachisbasedonthehypothesisthatifchemicals 

are structurally related, they behave similarly in the aquatic environment. 

In the group approach, available environmental fate and effects 

values for individual compounds within the group are used to 

conservatively estimate the potential for aquatic ecological risks for 

the entire structurally related group. The fragrance materials in the 

macrocyclic ketone group and the macrocyclic lactone and lactide 

group have been reviewed in separate human health group summaries 

(Belsito et al., in press a, b). These group summaries contain 

references to the Fragrance Material Reviews that provide the human 

health data for each of the individual materials in the group.

1620 

D. Salvito et al. / Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 74 (2011) 1619–1629 

1.1. Principles of chemical categorization 

Chemical categorization, also referred to as ‘‘chemical grouping’’, 

is a method of identifying analogs for chemicals of interest 

and enabling the extrapolation of a specific endpoint(s) of datapoor 

chemicals from data rich chemicals. Analogs can be readacross 

one chemical to one chemical, one to many, or many to 

many. The OECD has established guidance on the formation of 

categories and guidance has also been prepared in preparation for 

REACH by a REACH Implementation Project (OECD, 2005). 

1.2. General guidelines 

The group approach as applied here followed the guidance 

provided by the OECD (OECD, 2005) for the formation of chemical 

categories. This guidance could be applied to both human health 

and environmental endpoints. The principles are: 

1. Identify chemical category and assign its members. 

2. Gather published and unpublished data for each category 

member. 

3. Evaluate available data for adequacy in assessing the domain 

hypothesis. 

4. Construct a matrix of data availability. 

5. Perform an internal assessment of the category. 

6. Prepare a category test plan. 

7. Conduct the necessary testing. 

8. Perform an external assessment of the category and fill data gaps. 

The key steps for establishing a hypothesis and determining 

the validity of the hypothesis are steps 1 and 5; supported by the 

data gathering and review steps (2 through 4). Step 1 identifies 

the potential domain of the category and establishes the hypothesis 

built upon said domain. In a general sense a group of organic 

chemicals containing similar functional groups and covering a 

specified physical–chemical property range, potentially linked 

metabolically, should have endpoints that are predictive based 

on the findings of other members within the category. 

The purpose of Step 5 is to test the hypothesis formulated in 

Step 1; i.e. trying to refute its premise that the group selected is a 

reasonable one for read-across. This is done using the existing 

information and, assessing in parallel persistence (P), bioaccumulation 

(B) and toxicity (T) criteria. This part of the analysis will 

involve a more careful consideration of structure, QSAR and 

metabolic pathways than in Step 1. For example, the endpoints 

should support the metabolic pathway hypothesis and/or fit a 

well-validated QSAR. The possible outcomes of Step 5 are: 

Reject the entire category (should occur rarely). 

Reject some members based on sound scientific reasoning— 

poor fit with remaining members (expected outcome). 

Develop candidate subcategories ( note that the outcome here may 

be hierarchal; e.g. a ‘‘P’’ group with 2 different ‘‘BT’’ subgroups). 

Subcategory size should be the largest possible group of 

chemicals that shows common features (i.e., supports the domain 

hypothesis). However, the category itself may be the best fit for 

all endpoints (i.e., no need for subcategorization). 

At this point there is likely to be a need for the collection of 

more data (Steps 6–8) for at least two purposes. To further test 

the hypothesis that the category is a sound one and to fill 

important data gaps. 

The following points have to be considered during the process: 

Categorization and its associated hypothesis testing is a weight 

of evidence approach. There are likely to be outliers that should 

fit the category but do not. To the extent possible, these 

outliers should be explained; e.g., a, b unsaturation with 

respect to carbonyl groups present is a different category that 

is not part of the general group of ketones. 

Categorization is an approach in which both the favorable and 

unfavorable aspects of available data are applied equally. 

The use of chemical categories does not preclude minimal 

testing strategies (i.e., minimally, physical–chemical properties 

have to be measured or estimated and ready biodegradation 

studies will need to be performed). 

Subcategories for different endpoints may not match between 

endpoints relevant for human health and environmental endpoints 

(or even within); e.g., a skin sensitization subcategory 

may not contain all the same members as a persistence 

subcategory. 

Consideration of consistency between categories is important 

as well. There will be chemicals that will reside in more than 

one category. The development of the domain parameters and 

the category hypothesis should be applicable for the chemical 

in both (or more) categories. Furthermore, the conclusions for 

the appropriate subcategories, in this case where a chemical 

would reside in two distinct groups, should be consistent (e.g., 

the chemical cannot be bioaccumulative in one subcategory 

and not bioaccumulative in another). 

1.3. Specific guidelines for endpoint assessment in categorization 

While the principles outlined above provide guidance for the 

building and assessment of chemical categories in a broad sense, 

below are additional guidance for evaluating specific endpoints 

for environmental exposure (persistence and bioaccumulation 

data) and aquatic effects. 

1.3.1. Persistence 

If no experimental data are available the following computational 

models can serve as assessment tools: 

(a) CATABOL—for commonality of metabolic pathways; 

(b) METEOR—for mammalian metabolism; may be useful for P 

assessment and for fish metabolism; 

(c) University of Minnesota Biocatalysis/Biodegradation 

Database—for degradation reaction pathways. 

The following questions need to be addressed: 

1. Structural assessment: Does the same path exist for the 

chemicals in the groups for initial primary degradation (same 

sites of attack)? 

2. Are there breaks in the available dataset between readily 

biodegradable materials, inherently biodegradable materials, 

and non-biodegradable materials that are structurally defined? 

3. Structural assessment: Is the pathway for biodegradation likely 

to go to completion (mineralization) or are there structural 

biophobes that are likely to inhibit this process? 

4. Do potential metabolites (i.e., breakdown products), of the 

chemicals that do not completely metabolize have B or T 

properties? 

5. What is the expectation of performance in a ready test (should 

be able to predict % biodegradation)? 

6. If no ready biodegradation is predicted: 

(a) Is the material toxic under test conditions? 

(b) Do organisms have difficulty growing on the chemical to 

permit primary degradation (i.e., co-metabolism)? 

(c) Is the material bioavailable? 

(d) What is expected in aerobic versus anaerobic tests?

D. Salvito et al. / Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 74 (2011) 1619–1629 1621 

1.3.2. Bioaccumulation 

In a first step, the materials are grouped in classes with known 

metabolic activity versus non- or poorly metabolized materials. 

For non (poorly)-metabolizable chemicals separations between 

non-B/B/vB is based on the hydrophobicity indicator octanol– 

water partition coefficient K OW ; 

For categories with more than one metabolic pathway, separate 

by pathway. 

1.3.3. Ecotoxicity 

The classes are separated via mode of action (MOA) classification. 

For fragrance materials this separation is largely between 

narcosis (both Type I and II) and reactive toxicants (e.g., aldehydes). 

These mode-of-action classifications were originally 

proposed by Verhaar et al. (1992) and have had wide application 

in ecotoxicology. MOA I and II (nonpolar and polar narcosis) 

chemicals can more than likely be grouped together as they have 

a common underlying mechanism (Vaes et al., 1998). The difference 

is not very significant. ECETOC developed a more robust 

method for determining MOA (Thomas et al., 2008) beyond the 

use of the structural alerts of Verhaar et al. (1992). 

This weight of evidence approach, in whole or in part, may 

prove useful in categorizing for ecotoxic endpoints. 

2. Materials and methods 

identified in this study are a complete list of macrocyclic fragrance materials, as of 

this publication, used in commerce and found in the RIFM Database. The process 

described above for defining and assessing chemical categories was adhered to. 

Both of these classes are represented by a large carbon ring (typically 14–17 

carbons, Fig. 1). Unsaturation may also be present on the carbon ring. From the 

domain assessment that follows and a review of the available data, the presence or 

absence of unsaturation in the ring does not appear to necessitate further 

differentiation of these subgroups (i.e., there is no apparent effect on biodegradation 

or toxicity for these chemicals). The macrocyclic ketones contain only a single 

carbonyl functional group on the ring. The macrocyclic lactones/lactides contains 

one or two cyclic ester functional groups and, in the case of the lactones may also 

contain an additional ring oxygen or carbonyl group. Thirty different macrocyclic 

compounds were included in this group assessment, 15 lactones/lactides and 15 

ketones. Their physical–chemical properties are presented in Table 1. Measured 

data are provided where available. When measured values were not available, 

physical–chemical property estimates were calculated using the USEPA’s EPI Suite 

models (version 4.0). 

2.1.2. Microbial metabolism 

2.1.2.1. Gather published and unpublished data for each category member; evaluate 

available data for adequacy; construct a matrix of data availability. In addition to the 

structural differences between the two chemical classes, the macrocyclic ketones 

would have to undergo oxidation to a lactone during biodegradation and then 

further degrade via ester hydrolysis. The materials in the lactone/lactide subgroup 

would, therefore, degrade directly via ester hydrolysis. This microbial pathway 

was identified using the University of Minnesota Biocatalysis/Biodegradation 

Database (Gao et al., 2010) and shows, for cyclohexanone, Baeyer–Villiger oxidation 

of a cyclic ketone to a cyclic lactone (neutral under aerobic conditions) 

followed by the lactone forming the hydroxy carboxylate (likely under aerobic 

conditions). A representative reaction pathway is shown in Fig. 2. 

2.1. Domain definition: macrocyclic fragrance ingredients 

2.1.1. Structural similarity and physical–chemical properties (identify chemical 

category and assign its members) 

These macrocyclic fragrance materials are important fragrance ingredients 

and are widely used in cosmetics, detergents, fabric softeners, cleaning products 

and other household products. The groups of macrocyclic fragrance ingredients 

identified for this study consist of two structural classes (i.e., subcategories), 

macrocyclic ketones and macrocyclic lactones/lactides. The materials specifically 

2.1.2.2. Perform an internal assessment of the category. The two principally different 

pathways are supported by the difference in biodegradation predicted by BIOWIN 

for the two classes (i.e., predict ‘‘not readily biodegradable’’ for the ketones and 

‘‘readily biodegradable’’ for the lactones/lactides). This difference in prediction by 

the BIOWIN model is likely due to the necessity of an initial oxidation step for the 

ketones as noted above. Standardized experimental studies of biodegradation may 

not necessarily provide the data needed to demonstrate this difference. Thus, based 

on a weight of evidence approach, the biodegradation data for both groups of 

materials indicates that these compounds are readily biodegradable. However, the 

O 

O 

O 

Fig. 1. Domain definition.

1622 


Table 1 

Physical chemical properties. 

CAS# Name 2008 Vol Global 2008 Vol EU 2008 Vol NA MW Formula K OW Solubility 

(aq) (mg/L) 

Vapor pressure 

(mm Hg 25 1C) 

Ketones 

542-46-1 9-Cycloheptadecen-1-one o1 o1 o1 250.43 C 17 H 30 O 6.31 0.096 0.00034 

2550-52-9 Cyclohexadecanone 1–10 1–10 1–10 238.41 C 16 H 30 O 6.04 0.19 0.00026 

2550-59-6 7-Cyclohexadecen-1-one o1 NR o1 236.4 C 16 H 28 O 5.82 0.30 0.00024 

37609-25-9 5-Cyclohexadecen-1-one 10–100 10–100 1–10 236.99 C16H28O 5.82 0.30 0.00024 

3100-36-5 Cyclohexadec-8-en-1-one mixture of cis and trans isomer 10–100 10–100 1–10 236.99 

502-72-7 Cyclopentadecanone 10–100 10–100 10–100 224.39 C 15 H 28 O 5.55 0.60 0.00042 

63314-79-4 5-Cyclopentadecen-1-one, 3-methyl- 1–10 NR 1–10 236.4 C 16 H 28 O 6.57 (m) 0.100 (m) 0.0003 (m) 

35720-57-1 4-Cyclopentadecen-1-one 1–10 1–10 NR 222.37 C 15 H 26 O 5.33 0.94 0.00057 

14595-54-1 4-Cyclopentadecen-1-one, (Z)- 1–10 o1 1–10 

3603-99-4 Cyclotetradecan-1-one 0 0 0 210.61 C 14 H 26 O 5.05 1.87 0.0016 

259854-70-1 5-Cyclotetradecen-1-one, 3-methyl-,(5E)- 1–10 o1 o1 222.37 C15H26O 5.6 (m) 1.08 0.0011 

259854-71-2 5-Cyclotetradecen-1-one, 3-methyl-, (5Z)- NR NR NR 

541-91-3 3-Methyl-1-cyclopentadecanone 1–10 1–10 o1 238.42 C 16 H 30 O 5.96 0.22 0.00047 

82356-51-2 3-Methylcyclopentadecenone 10–100 10–100 10–100 C 16 H 28 O 44.88 (m) 0.899 (m) a 0.0003 (m) 

61415-11-0 3-Methylcyclotridecan-1-one NR NR NR 210.61 C 14 H 26 O 4.98 2.16 0.0021 

Lactones/lactides 

105-95-3 Ethylene brassylate 41000 100–1000 100–1000 270.37 C 15 H 26 O 4 4.7 (m) 1.72 4.4e 007 

54982-83-1 Ethylene dodecanedioate 100–1000 100–1000 100–1000 256.35 C14H24O4 3.65 (m) 75 (m) 0.00021 (m) 

109-29-5 Hexadecanolide 10–100 10–100 10–100 254.42 C16H30O2 6.65 0.047 2.5e 005 

7779-50-2 o-6-Hexadecenlactone o1 o1 o1 252.4 C 16 H 28 O 2 5.51 (m); 6.7 (m) –out 

of method range 

0.59 2.2e 005 

123-69-3 16-Hydroxy-7-hexadecenoic acid lactone o1 NR o1 252.39 C 16 H 28 O 2 

28645-51-4 Oxacycloheptadec-10-ene-2-one 10–100 10–100 10–100 252.39 C 16 H 28 O 2 

36508-31-3 Oxacycloheptadec-11-en-2-one o1 o1 o1 252.39 C 16 H 28 O 2 

38223-29-9 Oxacyclohexadecane-2,13-dione o1 o1 o1 254.37 C15H26O3 4.1 80 (m) 0.0006 (m) 

34902-57-3 Oxacyclohexadecen-2-one 100–1000 100–1000 100–1000 238.37 C15H26O2 46.2 (m); 43.94 (m); 

4.88 calc 

0. 964 (m) 0.0012 (m) 

111879-80-2 E- and Z-Oxacyclohexadec-12(þ13)-en-2-one 10–100 10–100 10–100 

329925-33-9 Oxacyclopentadec-10-en-2-one, 13-methyl- 1–10 1–10 1–10 238.37 C 15 H 26 O 2 2 isomers 5.8; 6.0 (m) 2.15 7.0 e 5 

1725-01-5 10-Oxahexadecanolide 1–10 o1 1–10 256.39 C 15 H 28 O 3 4.9 1.43 1.6e 005 

3391-83-1 11-Oxahexadecanolide 1–10 1–10 o1 256.39 C 15 H 28 O 3 4.9 1.43 1.6e 005 

6707-60-4 12-Oxahexadecanolide 1–10 1–10 o1 256.39 C15H28O3 4.9 1.43 1.6e 005 

106-02-5 o-Pentadecalactone 100–1000 100–1000 100–1000 240.39 C15H28O2 6.15 0.15 5.17e 005 

Properties calculated using EPISUITE 4.0 unless noted as measured: m. 

Volume range is in metric tones. 

As several of these materials are structural isomers, the physical–chemical properties for isomers are grouped and only one value is reported. 

NR: None reported. 

a pH of 6.3 and 20 1C; another study at pH of 9.15 and 20 1C reports a solubility of o0.07 mg/L.


O 

O 

O 

OH 

O- 

O 

Fig. 2. Representative reaction pathway for microbial metabolism of macrocyclic ketones and lactones. 

known difference in metabolism does support the distinction between the two 

subclasses (Table 2). 

2.1.3. Ecotoxicological mode of action 

2.1.3.1. Gather published and unpublished data for each category member, evaluate 

available data for adequacy, construct a matrix of data availability. The aquatic 

toxicity data is summarized in Table 3. 

Note: References noted in Tables 2 and 3 represent a significant number of 

unpublished studies from the RIFM Database. The complete citations for these 

studies can be found in the Supplemental Information provided for this paper. 

2.1.3.2. Perform an internal assessment of the category. According to Verhaar et al.’s 

(1992) rules for identifying ecotoxicological mode of action for organic compounds, 

the ketones would likely act as non-polar narcotics (Type I) and the lactones/lactides 

as polar narcotics (Type II). As noted earlier, as there is little to 

differentiate between these two modes of action, the measured aquatic toxicity 

varies little between the two subcategories. It can be noted, in support of this 

distinction, that the USEPA’s QSAR model ECOSAR differentiates between the two 

classes of compounds as well. ECOSAR applies the neutral organic QSAR to the 

ketones and the ester QSAR to the lactones/lactides. Furthermore, comparison 

between the output of this QSAR and measured toxicity values is not necessarily 

confirmatory of correct classification of a chemical category. These QSARs both 

under and over predict toxicity compared with experimental results. 

2.1.4. Conclusion on chemical categories 

As noted in Section 2.1.2, the measured experimental data for these two 

subgroups, are likely not sensitive enough to differentiate between the additional 

oxidation step needed for biodegradation or for differences between Type I and 

Type II narcosis in aquatic toxicity. However, following the Guidelines for 

categorization, the structural differences, microbial pathway for degradation, 

and ecotoxicological modes of action support the hypothesis that the macrocyclic 

fragrance materials are separable into two subcategories: ketones and lactoines/ 

lactides (Fig. 3). As this is an exercise in hypothesis testing, the data, in and of 

themselves, do not refute this hypothesis. 

2.2. Screening level risk assessment for the aquatic compartment 

2.2.1. Problem formulation 

A screening-level risk assessment was performed using the RIFM Environmental 

Framework (Salvito et al., 2002). This framework includes problem formulation, 

evaluation of exposure (via a conservative predicted environmental concentration 

based on each individual material’s continental tonnage) and ecotoxicological effect 

(via a predicted no effect concentration based on the lowest aquatic toxicity 

endpoint measured for any one material within a subgroup, but applied to the 

whole subgroup) and risk characterization. The assessment was performed for each 

group using data from all compounds in the group. 

2.2.2. Analysis—characterization of exposure: PEC 

The primary pathway by which fragrance materials can enter the environment 

during and after consumer use is as wastewater washed down drains (Salvito 

et al., 2002). A portion of the fragrance materials may volatilize to the atmosphere. 

The amount depends upon the type of consumer product the fragrance material is 

used in and the volatility of the fragrance compound. Another fraction will leave 

the household in the wastewater. Most wastewater is discharged to sewers that 

connect to wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), and thus considering the total 

volume of use of the fragrance materials discharged to the wastewater is an 

appropriately conservative approach for a screening level risk assessment as 

described in the Framework (Salvito et al., 2002) and is also consistent with the 

ERA guidelines for pharmaceuticals (EMEA, 2006). 

A typical WWTP includes primary treatment to remove solids and secondary 

treatment to remove dissolved and suspended organic matter. The most common 

type of secondary treatment is activated sludge. Removal of fragrance materials 

can involve sorption to sewage solids in primary and secondary treatment, 

biodegradation or biotransformation mainly during secondary treatment, and 

removal by clarification in the final clarifier before discharge to the aquatic 

environment. During conveyance in the sewer and treatment, some material can 

volatilize to the atmosphere. In addition, materials can be biodegraded, biotransformed, 

and sorbed to the sludge within the sewer. Materials removed by sorption 

to the sludge in the WWTP may be incinerated, landfilled, or amended to soil. 

Material not removed in the WWTP is discharged to surface waters, where 

biotransformation and biodegradation can continue. In the surface waters, 

materials may sorb to suspended solids and be transferred to the sediments. 

Exposure is expressed as a PEC in the water column of the mixing zone, where 

WWTP effluent is diluted with surface water (e.g., stream or river). This 

concentration is determined by fragrance usage volume, removal during WWTP 

treatment, and dilution in the mixing zone (Salvito et al., 2002). This approach 

makes the following assumptions: the entire fragrance usage volume in a region is 

discharged via sewers to WWTPs; usage is evenly distributed across the population 

of a region; no losses occur during consumer use or conveyance in the sewer 

as a result of volatilization or other processes; no losses occur as a result of 

biodegradation, biotransformation, or abiotic chemical processes; and effluents 

are minimally diluted (3:1) in the mixing zone. As noted in Salvito et al. (2002) a 

3:1 dilution is a conservative dilution estimate especially relative to the 10:1 

dilution recommended in the technical guidance in Europe for local-scale 

exposure calculations (ECHA, 2008a). The assumptions used in estimating operational 

aspects of wastewater treatment are that wastewater undergoes primary 

and secondary (activated sludge) treatment, removal during sewage treatment 

occurs only as a result of sorption, removal of solids during primary treatment is 

only 50% (many plants exhibit better efficiency), the level of suspended solids in 

the aeration vessel of the activated sludge system is 2500 mg/L (for many plants 

this value is closer to 3500 mg/L), and the level of solids in final effluent is 20 mg/L 

(many plants have much lower solids levels in their effluents). This assessment 

depends on three input variables: regional usage volume (metric tons/year), 

octanol–water partitioning coefficient (K OW ), and molecular weight. The model 

parameters and the conservative nature of this approach have been discussed 

elsewhere (Salvito et al., 2002). Macrocyclic fragrance materials have estimated 

log K OW values ranging from about 4.2 to about 6.7. Molecular weights generally 

are around 250 g/mol (Table 1). Population differences, per capita water usage, 

and influent solid levels are the variants between scenarios for European and 

North American screening level exposure assessments (Salvito et al., 2002). 

2.2.2.1. Calculation of the PEC. The PECs for all materials were estimated individually 

using the model described in the RIFM Environmental Framework (Salvito et al., 

2002) for the European and North American scenarios. For macrocyclic fragrance 

materials, the PEC was estimated based on the reported volume of use (IFRA, 2008) in 

Europe and North America, the individual material’s log K OW value, and a 3:1 dilution 

ratio to estimate exposure in the receiving stream. As the screening level assessment 

outlined in Salvito et al. (2002) is able to incorporate measured biodegradation data 

when available, as is the case for both macrocyclic fragrance ingredient subgroups, 

this rate (1/h) was included in the analysis (Salvito et al., 2002). 

2.2.3. Analysis—characterization of ecological effects: PNEC 

The potential toxic effects of a fragrance material in the aquatic environment 

were expressed in terms of a PNEC. All measured acute and chronic toxicity data 

available for each subgroup of compounds were evaluated and the lowest chronic 

no observed effect concentration (NOEC) for the subgroup was identified, based on 

measured concentrations. As data are not available for each compound in the 

particular subgroup, this NOEC was applied to all compounds within the subgroup 

to calculate risk quotients. This is consistent with using a ‘‘group approach’’. All of 

the toxicity tests were performed using Organization for Economic Cooperation 

and Development (OECD) methods (OECD, 2006a) or similar methodologies and 

are noted in Table 3. The PNEC was estimated by dividing the lowest chronic NOEC 

by an assessment factor selected using European Union guidelines (ECHA, 2008b) 

and the RIFM Environmental Framework (Salvito et al., 2002). 

2.2.3.1. Risk characterization. Potential risk to the aquatic environment for each 

subgroup was estimated from the ratio of the PEC to PNEC (PEC/PNEC) which

1624 


Table 2 

Biodegradation summary. 

Material CAS# Method Test duration Results References 

(a) Ketones 

5-cyclohexadecen-1-one 37609-25-9 OECD 301B 28 days 81% and 83% RIFM (1996a) 

OECD 301C 26 days 52%, 60% and 68% RIFM (1997a) 

OECD 302C 28 days 60% RIFM (1997b) 

OECD 301F 28 days 86% RIFM (1997c) 

Cyclopentadecanone 502-72-7 OECD 302A 28 days 66.7% RIFM (1997d) 

4-cyclopentadecen-1-one, (Z)- 14595-54-1 OECD 301B 28 days 83.9% RIFM (1999a) 

OECD 302A 28 days 99.8% RIFM (1999b) 

3-Methylcyclopentadecenone 82356-51-2 OECD 301F 28 days 61% RIFM, 1996b 

OECD 301B 28 days 96.4% (10 mg/L) RIFM (1996c) 

93.4% (20 mg/L) 

OECD 301D 28 days 43% RIFM (1995a) 

SCAS 7 days 99.9% removal RIFM (1995b) 

OCED 301B 28 days 78.8% RIFM (2000a) 

OECD 302A 28 days 96.1% RIFM (2000b) 

OECD 302C 28 days 85% BOD; 100% GC RIFM (2000c) 

Cyclohexadecanone 2550-52-9 OECD 301B 28 days 43% RIFM, 2001a 

5-Cyclotetradecen-1-one, 3-methyl- 

259854-70-1 OECD 302C 28 days 75% RIFM (2004a) 

,(5E) 

OECD 301F 28 days 70% [73% after 34 days] RIFM (2004b) 


,(5Z) 

259854-71-2 OECD 302C 28 days 75% RIFM, 2004a 

OECD 301F 28 days 70% [73% after 34 days] RIFM, 2004b 

3-Methyl-1-cyclopentadecanone 541-91-3 OECD 301F 28 days 80% RIFM (2009a) 

5-Cyclopentadecen-1-one, 3-methyl- 63314-79-4 OECD 301F 28 days 80% (100 mg/L); 81% (20 mg/L) RIFM (2009b) 

(b) Lactones/lactides 

Ethylene brassylate 105-95-3 ‘‘Closed Bottle’’ 28 days 40% RIFM (1996d) 

OECD 301F 28 days 73% RIFM (1996e) 

OECD 301F 28 days 77% RIFM (1996f) 

OECD 301F 28 days 89% RIFM (1998a) 

OECD 301B 28 days 78.1% RIFM (1994a) 

OECD 301F 28 days 83% RIFM (1999c) 

OECD 301C 28 days 85% BOD; 100% GC RIFM (1997e) 

OECD 301B 28 days 4100% RIFM (1997f) 

Ethylene dodecanedioate 54982-83-1 OECD 301B 28 days 80%; 78% RIFM (1997g) 

OECD 301C 28 days 73% BOD; 100% GC RIFM (1999d) 

OECD 301B 28 days 4100% RIFM (2000d) 

Oxacycloheptadec-10-ene-2-one 28645-51-4 OECD 301F 28 days 84% RIFM (1994b) 

Oxacycloheptadec-11-en-2-one 36508-31-3 OECD 301B 28 days 82% RIFM (1997h) 

10-Oxahexadecanolide 1725-01-5 OECD 301B 28 days 100% RIFM (1997i) 

11-Oxahexadecanolide 3391-83-1 OECD 301B 28 days 79.6% RIFM (1993) 

12-Oxahexadecanolide 6707-60-4 OECD 301B 28 days 96.5% RIFM (1996g) 

o-Pentadecalactone 106-02-5 OECD 301B 28 days 93% RIFM (1996h) 

OECD 301F 28 days 71% RIFM (2005) 

OECD 301B 28 days 82% RIFM (1998b) 

M.R Test C.4-D 28 days 90% RIFM (1996i) 

Oxacyclohexadecane-2,13-dione 38223-29-9 OECD 301B 28 days 83% (10 mg/L), 79% (20 mg/L) RIFM (1990a) 

E- and Z-Oxacyclohexadec-12(þ13)- 

111879-80-2 OECD 301F 28 days 95% RIFM (1996j) 

en-2-one 

OECD 301B 28 days 86.1% (10 mg/L); 87.1% (20 mg/L) RIFM (1995c) 

SCAS (SDA 

7 days Ave. removal: 95% RIFM (1995d) 

Method) 

OECD 301C 28 days 92% BOD; 100% GC RIFM, 1998c 

Oxacyclopentadec-10-en-2-one, 13- 

methyl 

Oxacyclopentadec-10-en-2-one, 13- 

methyl 

329925-33-9 OECD 111 120 h abiotic 

deg. 

(hydrolysis) 

0.4 mg/L 

329925-33-9 OECD 111 120 h abiotic 

deg. 

(hydrolysis) 

0.4 mg/L 

At pH values of 4 and 7 degradation is less than 10% after 5 days (equivalent to a 

half-life time higher than 1 year at 25 1C) and no more testing is required. For pH 9, 

about 50% degradation was observed after 120 h. In this case, a second degradation 

test was recommended at a lower temperature (35 1C) 

The low concentration measured at 120 h in the pH 7 solution is not in agreement 

with the results of the second preliminary test. An accidental loss during analysis 

may have occurred. The slow hydrolysis of the test material at pH 4 and 7, as 

observed at 50 1C is confirmed (half-life time higher than one year). Hydrolysis at 

pH 9 is slower than in the experiment at 50 1C, it also fits roughly a pseudo-first 

order law (straight line). From the two tests at 50 1C and 35 1C, a rate constant and 

half-life time at 25 1C can be calculated. The rate constant at 25 1C¼21.4 days 

RIFM (2000e) 

RIFM (2000e) 

OECD 301F 28 days 87%; 89% after 39 days RIFM (2000f)


Table 3 

Aquatic ecotoxicity data. 

Material CAS# Method Test 

duration 

Species Results References 

(a) Ketones 

3- Methylcyclopentadecenone 82356-51-2 OECD 202 48 h Daphnia 

magna 

OECD 211 21 days Daphnia 

magna 

OECD 203 96 h Oncorhynchus 

mykiss 

OECD 201 72 h Scenedesmus 

subspicatus 

OECD 210: No 

dose response 

relationship—not 

used for RA: See 

Supplemental 

Information 

33 days Pimephales 

promelas 

Cyclohexadecanone 2550-52-9 OECD 202 48 h Daphnia 

magna 


,(5E) 


,(5Z) 

OECD 203: Conc 

based on initial 

conc; no material 

detected at study 

termination 

96 h Brachydanio 

rerio 


subspicatus 

259854-70-1 OECD 202 48 h Daphnia 

magna 

259854-71-2 OECD 202 48 h Daphnia 

magna 

5-Cyclopentadecen-1-one, 3-methyl- 63314-79-4 OECD 201 (ErC50 

was extrapolated 

to 754 mg/L; 

highest test conc. 

was 715 mg/L) 

OECD 211 (time 

weighted means) 

72 h Pseudokirchneriella 

subcapitata 

21 days Daphnia 

magna 

(b) Lactones/lactides 

Ethylene brassylate 105-95-3 OECD 202 48 h Daphnia 

magna 

OECD 203 96 h Brachydanio 

rerio 

OECD 202 21 day Daphnia 

magna 

67/548/EWT 

(Algae Inhibition 

Test) 

72 h Scenedesmus 

subspicatus 

Ethylene dodecanedioate 54982-83-1 OECD 202 48 h Daphnia 

magna 


mykiss 


capricornutum 

EC50: 0.39 mg/L RIFM (1995e) 

NOEC: 0.18 mg/L 

EC50 (repro): 0.022 mg/L RIFM (2003a) 

LOEC: 0.045 mg/L: NOEC: 0.011 mg/L 

LC50: 0.45 mg/L RIFM (1995f) 


EbC50: 430 mg/L; ErC50: 430 mg/L; NOEC: Z30 mg/L RIFM (1995g) 

NOEC: 0.0020 mg/L (nominal) RIFM (2003b) 

0.00098 mg/L (mean measured) 

EC50:40.19 mg/L RIFM (2001b) 

LC50:40.1 mg/L RIFM (2001c) 

LC50: 40.22 mg/L 

EbC50: 41.8 mg/L; ErC50: 41.8 mg/L; NOEC: 41.8 mg/L RIFM (2001d) 

EC50: 0.58 mg/L RIFM (2004c) 


EC50: 0.58 mg/L RIFM (2004c) 


EbC50: 40.715 mg/L; RIFM (2009c) 

ErC50: 40.715 mg/L; 


EC50 (repro): 0.2534 mg/L RIFM (2009) 

LOEC: 0.1550 mg/L: 

NOEC: 0.0899 mg/L 

Geom. Mean EC0/EC100: 6.4 mg/L RIFM (1996k) 

Geom. Mean LC0/LC100: 1.23 mg/L RIFM (1996l) 

LOEC: 0.165 mg/L RIFM (1996m) 


EbC50: 5.2 mg/L; ErC50:46.9 mg/L; RIFM (1996n) 


EC50: 414 mg/L; NOEC: 14 mg/L RIFM (1997j) 

LC50: 0.88 mg/L; NOEC: 0.10 mg/L RIFM (1997k) 

EbC50: 1.9 mg/L; ErC50: 17 mg/L; RIFM (1997l) 

NOEC: 0.61 mg/L

1626 


Table 3 (continued ) 

Material CAS# Method Test 

duration 

Species Results References 

Oxacyclohepta dec-11-en-2-one 36508-31-3 OECD 202 48 h Daphnia 

magna 

o-Pentadeca lactone 106-02-5 (C.2), Directive 

67/548/EEC 

OECD 203 96 h Brachydanio 

rerio 


capricornutum 

(C.1) Directive 67/ 

548/EEC 

48 h Daphnia 

magna 

96 h Brachydanio 

rerio 


magna 

(C.3), Directive 

67/548/EEC 

72 h Scenedesmus 

subspicatus 

Oxacyclohexa-decane-2,13-dione 38223-29-9 OECD 202 48 h Daphnia 

magna 

E- and Z-Oxacyclohexadec-12(þ13)- 

en-2-one 

E- and Z-Oxacyclohexa dec-12(þ13)- 

en-2-one 

Oxacyclopenta dec-10-en-2-one, 13- 

methyl 

OECD 202: 21 days Daphnia 

magna 


subspicatus 

OECD 203 96 h Cyprinus 

carpio 

111879-80-2 OECD 210 33 days Pimephales 

promelas 

111879-80-2 OECD 202 48 h Daphnia 

magna 


mykiss 


magna 


subspicatus 

329925-33-9 OECD 202 48 h Daphnia 

magna 

OECD 203 96 h Cyprinus 

carpio 

OECD 201 72 h Selenastrum 

capricornutum 

EC50: 466 mg/l; RIFM (2000g) 

LC50: 42.5 mg/l; NOEC: 11.0 mg/l RIFM (2000h) 

EbC50 and ErC50:4113.5 mg/l; RIFM (1997m) 

EC0: 41.27 mg/L RIFM (1995h) 

LC0:40.11 mg/L RIFM (1994c) 

EC 0 / EC 100 (Immob; Geo Mean) 0.093 mg/L (0.28 mg/L (Nominal) RIFM,1996o 

EC 50 (Repro):40.068 mg/Lo0.127 mg/L [4 0.2 mg/Lo0.4 rng/l (Nominal)] 

NOEC (Repro) 0.068 rng/l [0.2 rng/l (Nominal)] 

LOEC (Repro): 0.127 rng/l [0.4 mg/L (Nominal)] 

NOEC: 0.26 mg/L: EbC50: 0.4 mg/L; ErC50: 40.47 mg/L RIFM (1996p) 

NOEC: 10 mg/L RIFM (1990b) 

EC50: 21.2 mg/L 

NOEC41.0 mg/L RIFM (1996q) 

EC50 41.0 mg/L 

EbC50: 11 mg/L; ErC50: 16 mg/L; RIFM (1994d) 


LC50: between 3.2 and 5.6 mg/L RIFM (1990e) 

NOEC: r1.8 mg/L 

NOEC: 0.027 mg/L (mean measured); 0.16 mg/L (nominal) RIFM ,(2003c) 

LOEC: 0.11 mg/L (mean measured); 0.50 mg/L (nominal) 

Nominal EC50: 0.88 mg/L RIFM (1995i) 

NOEC: 0.32 mg/L; 

Measured EC50: 0.48 mg/L 


Nominal LC50: 2.4 mg/L RIFM (1995j) 

NOEC: 1.0 mg/L; 

Measured LC50: 2.0 mg/L 


EC50 (immob): 0.27 mg/L, nominal; 0.079 mg/L, time-weighted mean measured 

EC50 (repro): 0.27 mg/L, nominal; 0.079 mg/L, time-weighted mean measured 

LOEC: 0.48 mg/L, nominal; 0.16 mg/L, time-weighted mean measured NOEC: 

0.15 mg/L, nominal; 0.039 mg/L, time-weighted mean measured 

RIFM (2002) 

EbC50: 2.4 mg/L; ErC50: 5.0 mg/L; NOEC: 0.625mg/L RIFM (1995k) 

EC50:40.686 mg/L RIFM (2001e) 

LC50: 40.884 mg/L RIFM (2001f) 

The NOEC corresponded with a WAF prepared at 10 mg/L for both cell growth 

inhibition and growth rate reduction. The NOEC exceeded the maximum solubility 

of 1.6 mg/L at 20 1C in distilled water and 0.6 mg/L at 20 1C and a pH of 7.0 in reconstituted 

medium 

RIFM (2001g)


Fig. 3. Decision process following categorization guidelines. 

defines the risk quotient. When the PEC/PNEC ratio is below one, the risk from the 

macrocyclic group is considered to be negligible at current volumes of use and 

thus no adverse aquatic impacts are expected. The screening-level risk assessment 

answers the question: ‘‘Is there a potential for ecological risk?’’. When the risk 

quotient exceeds one, a more robust assessment of the environmental risk is 

warranted to attempt to quantify the magnitude and probability of those risks. 

3. Results and discussion 

Read-across plays an important role in the risk assessment 

that follows. Following the guidance established in Section 1 of 

this paper, and having supported the hypothesis that these 

materials can be assessed as two groups of macrocyclic compounds, 

it is appropriate to read across from the data presented 

for both biodegradation and aquatic toxicity. 

3.1. Estimation of PECs—exposure assessment 

The annual volume of use range for the macrocyclic ketones in 

both Europe and North America is from o1 (low kg quantities) to 

no greater than 50 metric tonnes in either region (resulting in the 

10–100 tonne tonnage band) and for macrocyclic lactones/lactides 

the volume of use range for both regions is o1 to no greater 

than 1000 metric tonnes in any one region; here, resulting in a 

41000 metric tonnes volume of use band (IFRA, 2008). 

Within the RIFM/FEMA Database there are 22 biodegradation 

studies available for 9 macrocyclic ketones and 28 studies for 11 

macrocyclic lactones/lactides (Table 2). Following OECD Guidelines 

(OECD, 2006b) for determining ready biodegradation (e.g., 

considering the ‘‘10-day window’’), macrocyclic ketones range 

from inherent to readily biodegradable. However, the range of 

biodegradation (mineralization) from these studies ranges from a 

low of 43% to a high of 100%. In performing this assessment the 

quality of the data reported in the RIFM Database was evaluated. 

All studies followed OECD Guidelines. While data outliers are 

present, there was nothing present in the data reports to warrant 

their exclusion. Therefore, all available biodegradation were used. 

The low values observed are not supported by the weight of 

evidence from the studies (see Table 2) evaluated for any 

individual compound but are included in this assessment for 

completeness and to provide for a conservative evaluation of 

exposure. In applying the RIFM Framework, a conservative value 

of 1 h 1 is used as the biodegradation rate for these compounds. 

Macrocyclic lactones/lactides were largely found to be readily 

biodegradable with biodegradation ranging from 71% to 4100% 

in the available studies with a single outlier (40%) not supported 

by other studies for the same compound (ethylene brassylate). In 

applying the RIFM Framework, while a rate of 3 h 1 is acceptable, 

a conservative value of 1 h 1 was applied for biodegradation in 

the WWTP in the exposure assessment of these compounds. 

Based on these data, neither the macrocyclic ketones nor the 

macrocyclic lactones/lactides should be considered persistent in 

the aquatic environment. 

Based on these input parameters, and a 3:1 dilution ratio, the 

Framework estimates that the predicted concentration of macrocyclic 

ketones in river water within the mixing zone of the WWTP 

discharge would be range from o0.01 to 0.05 mg/L in Europe and 

from o0.01 to 0.03 mg/L in North America. For macrocyclic 

lactones/lactides, the concentration within the mixing zone 

would range from in Europe from o0.01 to 0.7 mg/L and from 

o0.01 to 1.0 mg/L in North America. These differences between 

regions occur because there are different input parameters for the

1628 


model for Europe and North America (e.g., per capita water use) 

and tonnage varies between the two regions. 

3.2. Estimation of PNECs 

For 5 macrocyclics ketones, 3 algae inhibition studies, 4 daphnia 

immobilization studies, 2 fish acute lethality studies and 2 daphnia 

reproduction studies are available within the RIFM database. For 

7 macrocyclic lactones/lactides, 7 algae inhibition studies, 7 daphnia 

immobilization studies, 7 fish lethality studies, 4 daphnia 

reproduction studies and 1 fish early life stage study are available 

within the RIFM Database. For the ketones, and the lactones/ 

lactides as well, ecotoxicity studies are often difficult to perform 

due to the poor solubility of the materials, their volatility, and 

their ability to degrade. Concerns about material solubility and the 

usefulness of the data do not negate the conservative nature of 

this assessment. In performing this assessment the quality of the 

data reported in the RIFM Database was evaluated. All studies 

followed OECD Guidelines. The chronic toxicity studies, run at 

lower concentrations below the water solubility, provide for 

reliable data to be used in this group effects assessment. The acute 

data, while more prone to concerns about material solubility, 

appear to provide relatively consistent experimental values continuing 

to support the group effects assessment. In only one case, a 

Fish, Early Life Stage study of 3-methylcyclopentadecenone, was 

the data determined to be of sufficiently poor quality that it could 

not be used in this assessment (see Supplemental Information). 

These data are summarized in Table 3. 

For the macrocyclic ketones, the lowest acute EC 50 /LC 50 reported 

(algae, daphnia or fish) was 0.39 mg/L (D. magna immobilization 

study for 3-Methylcyclopentadecenone) and the lowest NOEC was 

0.011 mg/L (D. magna reproduction study for 3-Methylcyclopentadecenone). 

Two chronic endpoints are available (algae and daphnia), 

therefore an assessment factor of 50, as described in Salvito et al. 

(2002) is applied to this NOEC. The PNEC derived for the macrocyclic 

ketonesis0.22mg/L. 

For the macrocyclic lactones/lactides, the lowest acute EC 50 /LC 50 

reported (algae, daphnia or fish) was 0.0425 mg/L (Danio rerio 

lethality study for Oxacycloheptadec-11-en-2-one). This material 

is reported in other studies to be very poorly soluble (mean limit of 

solubility reported in its D. magna immobilization study is 66 mg/L). 

This may explain the difference observed in acute toxicity between 

this material and the other lactones/lactides where the next lowest 

acute endpoint reported is an order of magnitude higher (E b C 50 in 

an algae biomass based inhibition study for o-pentadecalactone). 

The lowest NOEC from a chronic toxicity study was 0.027 mg/L (fish 

early life stage study study for Oxacyclohexadecen-2-one). Three 

chronic endpoints are available (algae, daphnia, and fish), therefore 

an assessment factor of 10 is applied to this NOEC. The PNEC 

derived for the macrocyclic lactones/lactides is 2.7 mg/L. 

As with biodegradation, one rate applied to all chemicals 

within the subgroup, the PNEC is applied to all materials within 

each subgroup. Risk quotients are then calculated based on 

individual material PECs. 

3.3. Risk characterization 

The screening level risk quotient, PEC/PNEC ratio, for macrocyclic 

lactones/lactides ranges from o0.05 to 0.27 for the North 

American scenario and o0.05 to 0.35 for the European scenario 

identified in the RIFM Framework. The screening level PEC/PNEC 

ratio for macrocyclic ketones ranges from o0.05 to 0.14 for the 

North American scenario and o0.05 to 0.23 for the European 

scenario identified in the RIFM Framework (Figs. 4 and 5). 

Since the risk quotients for all materials are less than 1.0, the 

potential risks of macrocyclic fragrance ingredients to aquatic 

Fig. 4. Risk quotients for macrocyclic ketones categorized by volume bands 

(metric tonnes). Nine out of 15 materials are presented based on their EU tonnage 

and 9 out of 15 based on their US tonnage. Additional materials are not included as 

their risk quotients were too low to be presented (50.01). 

Fig. 5. Risk quotients for macrocyclic lactones/lactides categorized by volume 

bands (metric tonnes). Seven out of 15 materials are presented based on their EU 

tonnage and 7 out of 15 based on their US tonnage. Additional materials are not 

included as their risk quotients were too low to be presented (50.01). 

biota are negligible at current use levels. The RIFM Framework, as 

applied, has been designed to conservatively overpredict PEC/ 

PNEC values. This screening-level assessment only evaluated the 

aqueous exposure pathway. It did not consider effects to sediment 

organisms or exposure via bioaccumulation in food. 

4. Conclusions 

The results of a screening-level aquatic ecological risk assessment 

using a group approach indicates that at the current volume 

of use, of macrocyclic fragrance materials do not pose a significant


risk to aquatic biota. This is primarily a function of the high 

degree of degradation expected in waste water treatment of 

macrocyclic fragrance materials resulting in efficient removal in 

wastewater treatment plants. Based on current volume of use, no 

PEC/PNEC ratio exceeds 1 for any material in any subgroup under 

any set of conditions identified in the RIFM Framework. The IFRA 

volume of use survey is revised every 4 years allowing RIFM to 

reassess the aquatic risk of this class of fragrance materials. 

Acknowledgments 

The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions 

Dr. Benjamin Parkhurst made to the development of this manuscript. 

The authors also acknowledge the Research Institute for 

Fragrance Materials for their support of this project. 

Appendix A. Supplemental Information 

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found 

in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2011.05.002. 

References 

Belsito, D., Bickers, D., Bruze, M., Calow, P., Dagli, M., Fryer, A.D., Greim, H., Hanifin, 

J.H., Miyachi, Y., Saurat, J.H., Sipes, I.G., A toxicologic and dermatologic 

assessment of macrocylic ketones and derivatives when used as fragrance 

ingredients. Food and Chemical Toxicology, in press a. 

Belsito, D., Bickers, D., Bruze, M., Calow, P., Dagli, M., Fryer, A.D., Greim, H., Hanifin, 

J.H., Miyachi, Y., Saurat, J.H., Sipes, I.G., A toxicologic and dermatologic 

assessment of macrocylic lactones and lactide derivatives when used as 

fragrance ingredients. Food and Chemical Toxicology, in press b. 

Bickers, D., Calow, P., Greim, H., Hanifin, J., Rogers, A., Saurat, J.H., Sipes, I., Smith, 

L., Tagami, H., 2003. The safety assessment of fragrance materials. Regulatory 

Toxicology and Pharmacology 37 (2), 218–273. 

EMEA (European Medicine Agency), 2006. Guideline on the Environmental Risk 

Assessment of Medicinal Products for Human Use CHMP/SWP/4447/00. The 

European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, London. 

ECHA (European Chemical Agency), 2008a. Guidance on Information Requirements 

and Chemical Safety Assessment Part E: Risk Characterization. 

European Chemicals Agency, Helsinki. 

ECHA (European Chemical Agency), 2008b. Guidance on Information Requirements 

and Chemical Safety Assessment Chapter R.10: Characterization of Dose 

[concentration]–response for Environment. European Chemicals Agency, 

Helsinki. 

Gao, J., Ellis, L., Wackett, L., 2010. The University of Minnesota Biocatalysis/ 

Biodegradation Database: improving public access. Nucleic Acids Research 

38, D488–D491. 

IFRA (International Fragrance Association), 2008. Volume of Use Survey. 

OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development), 2005. Manual 

for investigation of HPV chemicals. Guidance on the Development and Use of 

Chemical Categories in the HPV Chemicals Programme (Chapter 3.2). 

OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development), 2006a. OECD 

Guidelines for Testing of Chemicals, vol. 2. Section 2: Effects on Biotic Systems. 

Paris, France. 

OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development), 2006b. OECD 

Guidelines for Testing of Chemicals, vol. 2. Section 3: Degradation and 

Accumulation. Paris, France. 

Salvito, D., Senna, R., Federle, T., 2002. A framework for prioritizing fragrance 

materials for aquatic risk assessment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 

21, 301–1308. 

Thomas, P., Holt, M., Lemaire, P., Malcomber, I., Salvito, D., Thompson, R., 2008. 

A weight-of-evidence (woe) approach for determining mode of Action: an 

ECETOC case study. IEAM 4 (3), 374–375. 

Vaes, W.H.M., Urrestarazu-Ramos, E., Verhaar, H., Hermens, J.L.M., 1998. Acute 

toxicity of nonpolar versus polar narcosis: is there a difference? Environmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry 17, 1380–1384. 

Verhaar, H.J.M., De Jongh, J., Hermens, J.L.M., 1992. Modeling the bioconcentration 

of organic compounds by fish: a novel approach. Environmental Science & 

Technology 33 (22), 4069–4072. 

email: sciencereprints@elsevier.com 

TSP N78801

to download - Research Institute for Fragrance Materials

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?